Judiciary / Najib Razak / Umno & Barisan Nasional

Did Najib’s lawyers send the most pathetic legal letter to WSJ?

We came across this news from an unverified source. But for the sake of entertainment, let’s just humour this piece of news and see what it entails.

It seems that the Prime Minister last night had instructed his lawyers to send a letter of demand to Wall Street Journal.

But it was preceded by a press release by the lawyers which basically detailing out the difficulty of this legal matter. They ironed out a couple of problems before they will decide what kind of action they will take.

What this means, the press release is begging the public to understand that this matter takes time, and the exercise could possibly be a waste of time. Political-wise, they just want to buy some time for their client. To show that some action is being taken, despite some allegations that their client do not have the courage to actually do anything.

Below is the press release:

PRESS RELEASE

A Wall street Journal had published an article dated 3rd July 2015, implicating our client Datuk Seri Najib. Immediately, our client had instructed us, Messrs Hafarizam Wan & Aisha Mubarak, to scrutinize the said article. The article is tainted with numerous allegations against our client which involved several companies and transactions.

Combing through the said article, we have concluded that the language is intentionally or otherwise has made reference to several facts and companies which are vaguely described. Reference is made to the said article wherein it has been stated that our client had been directly probed into 1MDB, however contents of the article refers to indirect transactions where our client has been implicated with 1MDB-linked companies. A clear contradiction which requires further clarification.

This article by WSJ was issued, published and circulated through WSJ web portal http://www.wsj.com . Firstly, we have been instructed to identify the parties involved in the authorship, distribution and publishing, for the purpose of naming the appropriate parties in any potential actions which requires deliberation and research as the article does not reflect extensive details for service of any legal letter or court documents.

Secondly, another issue of concern is, jurisdictional issues of which the publication originates from United States of America and accessible worldwide. We have been also instructed that a local presence of WSJ is also available and we are pursuing further clarification and details on this matter.

Since the article involves several parties, we have also been instructed to consider a joint action or an action against, in the event evidence shows a conspiracy against our client. Kindly note that the companies named as conspirators with our client, in the article are; International Petroleum Investment Co, Tanore Finance Corp, SRC International Sdn. Bhd, and Ihsan Perdana Sdn. Bhd.

They actually want to know if WSJ is saying that IPIC, Tanore, SRC and Ihsan Perdana are conspiring against Najib Razak. Well, if money went through those companies’ accounts before it end up in the PM’s bank accounts, then will the lawyers sue those companies? Maybe they should just personally ask those companies since the PM are friends with the people in those companies! Mind-boggling.

Several names of companies or organizations had only been referred to as the related companies or companies belonging to certain organizations or companies, and also the sources or destinations or the alleged transactions has not been disclosedThis in itself either intentionally or otherwise has caused further identification of facts been required.

Once we have identified the parties, the jurisdiction, and the involvement of conspirators or are they merely parties which also had been innocently imputed in the article, we can then proceed to address the third issue.

Can’t the lawyers just ask those companies if they really conspired against the PM? This press release is getting ridiculous. By the way, in the actual letter to WSJ below, the lawyers did not even ask WSJ about this. Maybe they forgot to put it in.

The third issue is to tackle all possible or plausible legal remedies of which our client shall be given advise on an action of defamation, further tortuous actions and remedies including any statutory violations by WSJ and related companies and (if any) conspirers.

This is not a straightforward legal action due to the national and international imputations. We have been instructed to identify facts and lay full facts, before our client, is able to proceed with further instructions.

The purpose of clear explanation is to avoid unnecessary objections by WSJ on the imputations that are made. Once our client has obtained all necessary facts and the position of WSJ is ascertained, we have strict instructions to immediately exhaust legal avenues and remedies.

Yours faithfully,

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF MESSRS HAFARIZAM WAN & AISHA MUBARAK 

WAN AZMIR BIN WAN MAJID

We are actually amazed that the lawyers would even issue such press release. It really reflects on their incompetency of the whole matter. But of course, incompetency breeds more incompetencies as the letter of demand below shows:

The letter from Najib’s lawyers to Wall Street Journal:

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC

ARTICLES WRITTEN BY SIMON CLARK AND TOM WRIGHT IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL CONCERNING YAB DATO’ SRI MOHD NAJIB BIN TUN HAJI ABDUL RAZAK ENTITLED “MALAYSIA LEADER’S ACCOUNTS PROBED” PUBLISHED ON 2ND JULY 2015 AND “SCANDAL IN MALAYSIA” PUBLISHED ON 6TH JULY 2015  (“ THE ARTICLES”)

We act for the Right Honourable Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, in his personal capacity.

We refer to the Articles dated 2nd July 2015 and 6th July 2015 in your Wall Street Journal which, we state, contains a plethora of convoluted, scurrilous and vague allegations against our client.

What exactly are vague allegations? Is it an allegation or not? Would it be the same with a little bit pregnant but not pregnant? An allegation is an allegation. You cannot sue someone with a vague allegation. How could a vague allegation be scurrilous?

In the circumstances, we are instructed by our Client to seek confirmation as to whether it is your position as taken in the Articles that our Client misappropriated nearly USD 700 million from 1Malaysia Development Berhad?

Now they want WSJ to confirm if the USD700 million was misappropriated by Najib Razak. WSJ can just easily tell them to just ask their Client since the money was banked in into his account. The WSJ article did state that money was channeled into his bank accounts but they do not know what happened to it, or how it was used. It’s laughable to ask for confirmation because it shows that the lawyers did not read those articles thoroughly. 

We are instructed to procure your position because the Articles collectively suggest that you are unsure of “the original source of the money and what happened to the money” whilst on the other hand, the general gist of the Articles create a clear impression that our Client has misappropriated about USD 700 million belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

Precisely as their article had said, that WSJ is unsure as to where the money came from and what happened to it. We can predict what WSJ would have replied regarding their position; that they have sighted the documents and that huge sums of money have been transferred into the PM’s personal bank accounts (which the PM never denied). The lawyers just wanted WSJ to confirm and say that Najib had swindled the money, which WSJ definitely will reply – “Go ask your client if indeed he misappropriated it, the money wasn’t transferred into our accounts!”. The lawyers really do not have anything more concrete than this to go by.

In the circumstance and in the interests of our Client, we would expect a Newspaper of your international standing and reputation to state unequivocally and with clarity as to whether it is your contention that our Client misappropriated about USD 700 million belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad. You will no doubt appreciate the seriousness of the allegations made against our Client in the said Articles and this confirmation is sought to enable us to advise our Client on the appropriate legal recourse he can take to seek redress in relation to the publication of these Articles.

Why should WSJ state anything other than what they had published in their articles? Only when WSJ chose to state that yes, Najib misappropriated the money, they will take legal action.

Maybe the lawyers need to discern that the allegations WSJ made is – nearly USD700 million was pumped in into Najib Razak’s accounts. That is all. The most ironic thing  is, the lawyers did not demand WSJ to explain this, because by now all sundry know that the PM never deny that the money was definitely in his accounts.

We demand a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date hereof and please let us know whether you have appointed solicitors in Malaysia to accept service of legal proceedings on your behalf and on behalf of the reporters who wrote the Articles in the event that legal proceeding become necessary.

Basically the lawyers demand WSJ to confess something they never alleged so that Najib Razak can show the world he is doing something. This letter is a farce, made by a farcical team of lawyers who could only concoct a lousy, pathetic letter just to get some laughs from the whole world. WSJ does not even have to reply, because Najib’s lawyers really have nothing to sue them about. 

We hereby reserve all our Client’s rights in this matter.

If this is the gold standard in the administration, no wonder there is not much hope for an intelligent leadership. Please tell us this letter wasn’t actually sent to WSJ. It will really be embarrassing for the country if it did. Thank you.

 
WSJ1

WSJ2

facepalm

You might also want to read:

1) Why the public do not believe the Prime Minister’s denial

2) Did Petrosaudi swindle 1MDB and steal our money?

3) The chronology of 1MDB’s suspicious joint venture

4) Bekerja keras melindungi penyelewengan 1MDB

5) Penyelewengan ketara 1MDB

40 thoughts on “Did Najib’s lawyers send the most pathetic legal letter to WSJ?

  1. Good one JMD. But you forgot to point out this error in the oh so official legal letter: “The third issue is to tackle all possible or plausible legal remedies of which our client shall be given advise on an action of defamation,”

    “Advice” lah brudder when it’s a noun, not “advise”. On top of all the massively shameful things the PM has put our country through, can’t he even hire lawyers who speak English competently? Malu aje sending this letter to WSJ & their own legal counsel

    As always the PM is a Total Fail.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “Since the article involves several parties, we have also been instructed to consider a joint action or an action against, in the event evidence shows a conspiracy against our client. Kindly note that the companies named as conspirators with our client, in the article are; International Petroleum Investment Co, Tanore Finance Corp, SRC International Sdn. Bhd, and Ihsan Perdana Sdn. Bhd.”

    JMD this actually means they want to or are instructed to consider take a joint action with those parties against WSJ, not the other way around. It is “conspirators with our client”.

    “is your contention that our Client misappropriated about USD 700 million belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad”

    This is the whole point of the letter to WSJ and it is so poor, they are asking whether WSJ is claiming the money came from IMDB when WSJ already said that they don’t know where they money is from and showed that the money came from these other companies. They aren’t even asking whether WSJ is alleging the account is the PM’s, they aren’t even contesting that!

    This is another PR disaster from the PM

    Like

    • You are right about the issue on those companies as conspirators. And you are right about how disastrous this letter is for the PM! Thank you.

      Like

    • Abraham Lincoln practised law for 25 years before he was elected President; here is his counsel for lawyers:

      “The matter of fees is important, far beyond the mere question of bread and butter involved. Properly attended to, fuller justice is done to both lawyer and client. An exorbitant fee should never be claimed. As a general rule never take your whole fee in advance, nor any more than a small retainer (advance). When (and if) fully paid beforehand, you are more than a common mortal if you can feel the same interest in the case, as if something was still in prospect for you, as well as for your client (ie. you won’t be able to do what is right and proper). And when you lack interest in the case the job will very likely lack skill and diligence in the performance. Settle the amount of fee and take a note in advance. Then you will feel that you are working for something, and you are sure to do your work faithfully and well. Never sell a fee note (?) — at least not before the consideration service is performed. It leads to negligence and dishonesty — negligence by losing interest in the case, and dishonesty in refusing to refund when you have allowed the consideration to fail.”

      “There is a vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest. I say vague, because when we consider to what extent confidence and honors are reposed in and conferred upon lawyers by the people, it appears improbable that their impression of dishonesty is very distinct and vivid. Yet the impression is common, almost universal. Let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to this popular belief — resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. Choose some other occupation, rather than one in the choosing of which, you consent beforehand to be a knave (ie. an unscrupulous swindler).”

      Like

  3. How come no demand WSJ to retract the article. Usually that’s the first step in suing somebody. Retract your article and apologise or else we will take legal action to sue.

    WSJ could probably answer if you can’t understand what my article is saying, and want me to explain to you, then that’s your own bloody problem…I have no time for your crap!

    Like

  4. What do you expect from cradle to grave special rights ‘ketuanan’ Mats or Minahs not to mention the overnight transformed Melayu-Islam heroes.

    Like

  5. Aiyo. …”tortuous” reading the statement. English not so terror lor, how lah, send legal letter to international organisation? Surely there are legal firms here who can draft letters with better grammar? Surely (or shore-ly as Jibs is wont to say) would have vetted the statement and letter first?

    Bet the WSJ lawyers will be puzzling over what exactly Najib wants.
    Then again, weather-vane Jibby doesn’t seem to know what he truly wants.

    Like

  6. First & foremost, why is the letter addressed to the BOD of Dow Jones? Doesn’t WSJ, an independent company have a board?
    This is clearly a delay tactic…

    Like

  7. “In the circumstances, we are instructed by our Client to seek confirmation as to whether it is your position as taken in the Articles that our Client misappropriated nearly USD 700 million from 1Malaysia Development Berhad?”

    Slm.JMD,
    Apa yg lawngok ni buat ialah utk create evidence against wsj. Statement kat atas serta minta confirmation dr wsj adalah utk tujuan tersebut. Wsj x nah kata missappropriated from 1md!!! Wsj cuma kata fund msk dr company yg mungkin ada link dgn 1md..

    Tpi WSJ pun ada lawyer dorang dans saya rasa mereka x sebodoh yg htr surat ni

    Like

  8. You’re right.

    This is the legal equivalent of a filibuster.

    The highway contract-seeking macai lawyers are clearly not sure of their grounds at all, and are feeding in non-questions so that UMNO (average IQ, 30) can grunt: “DSN dah saman dorang!!!!”

    “In the circumstances, we are instructed by our Client to seek confirmation as to whether it is your position as taken in the Articles that our Client misappropriated nearly USD 700 million from 1Malaysia Development Berhad?”

    Bodoh ke ber?

    That’s not how the law of defamation works. You don’t write to the person and ask, “ehhhhh, so you defame me tadi ke?” There is an objective test that is applied to the raw materials. The conclusion that a reasonable man would reach on reading the article, would he say “Ah, this ball-free Bugis misappropriated the money!” is the very basis of the case (if you have any). As it is, the WSJ has not said the money came from 1MDB.

    I think being an UMNO crony lawyer eventually kills your brain cells.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Balik universiti lah peguam peguam. Satu sendiwara oleh Najib. Kes ini mudah. Sah kan kepada rakyat bahawa Najib tak ada akaun di AmBank yg menerima US700 Juta ?

    Sekiranya jawapan Najib tidak ada maka tutup kes.

    Najib tak perlu cakap berbelit belit bahawa “saya tidak ambik wang untuk diri saya”. Bermakna wang US700 juta sah diterima masuk dlm akaun Najib ? Bermakna Najib ada akaun di AmBank atas nama Datuk Seri Najib ya itu Perdana Menteri Malaysia.

    Najib kata ” Tak kan saya nak menghianati Rakyat. Kalau saya nak menyamun tak perlu buka akaun dalam Malaysia.” Bersetuju. Tapi sahkan bahawa akaun atas nama KAMU menerima dana sejumlah itu ? Jawapan Ya atau Tidak. Kalau tidak kes tutup. Kalau Ya….bersedialah Najib ditelanjang habis dalam Makamah.

    Ini isu pokok. Peguam peguam “half coooked” yang mengeluar surat diatas sebenarnya keliru. Dan dalam keadaan sekarang Najib memerlu peguam peguam setengah masak untuk mengaburi mata penyangak penyangak yang berada disekelilingnya.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. http://www.rockybru.com.my/2015/07/just-three-questions-for-wsj-hafarizam.html

    Just Three Questions for WSJ, Hafarizam please take note

    Bru Notes: This is not the work of PGI but I’m sure the people who tracked down Justo would be impressed by the analysis done by this author, who by the way is a legally-trained Malaysian currently heading a banking/finance institution [and therefore, unfortunately, must remain anonymous].


    bro,

    Saya guna google search engine je. LOL

    cheers
    ./mkh
    p/s: nampaknya rocky perlu berputar lagi.🙂

    (1)
    Bank-correspondent of the addressee Bank / Correspondent bank of beneficiary’s bank
    Wachovia Bank NY International Branch, New York
    4th Floor, 11 Penn Plaza, New York 10001 USA
    S.W.I.F.T PNBPUS3NANYC

    (2)
    https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/corporate/wachovia

    Wachovia Is Now Wells Fargo

    Like

  11. Dteebau….saya rasa lawyer x keliru….dorang xde kes nak kenakan wsj so dorang request info dan mta confirmation yg wsj kata duit dari 1md..kalau wsj tersilap bg jawapan maka barulah lawyer2 ni bertindak. Namun WSJ pun ada lawyer sendiri gak dan saya mereka x semangkuk yg info/pengakuan ni…

    Ni smua mainan lawyer utk build a case shj.

    Dia dan lawyernya nampak xde idea/ground utk menyaman wsj.

    Fakta:
    1) Dia x penah deny bersama bukti sampai ke hari ni secara umum.
    2) Dia x kotakan janji utk ambil tindakan undang2 sampai ke harini. (Apa yg lawyer dia htr cumalah surat pertanyaan/pengesahan dgn tujuan utk menjerat wsj)
    3) Bank kancil yg berkuasa penuh x deny/beri kenyataan
    4) Bank unta pun senyap
    5) Akaun dibekukan

    Like

  12. Pingback: Did Najib’s lawyers send the most pathetic legal letter to WSJ? | ajai62

  13. I think they meant to say tortious (of or arising from an action in tort) and not tortuous.

    And seriously… no case to answer.

    LOL

    Like

  14. Really ar u tuduh duit msk acc i? U da cek ke maklumat u? Mungkin anak u main komputer kot? Betul ke betul2 u tuduh duit msk acc i ni? Ckp la betul2…jgn jdi penipu cam i…u tuduh duit msk acc i ke tak? Ada 4 saksi bodoh tak?

    Bangang nye lawyerburuk cuba nak dptkan punca utk sue wsj!!!

    Like

  15. From the PM’s blog

    https://najibrazak.com/blog/kenyataan-yab-dato-sri-mohd-najib-razak/

    “4. Siasatan sedang dilakukan oleh Pasukan Petugas Khas untuk menentukan sama ada tuduhan yang dibuat oleh Wall Street Journal bahawa saya telah mengambil dana 1 MDB untuk kepentingan diri sendiri berasas atau tidak. Siasatan mesti mengambil kira kesahihan dokumen yang telah disiarkan bagi menyokong tindakan akhbar tersebut.

    5. Meskipun begitu, saya ingin menegaskan sekali lagi bahawa saya tidak pernah mengambil dana 1MDB untuk kepentingan diri sendiri. Tuduhan Wall Street Journal merupakan satu niat jahat yang didokong dan disokong oleh pihak tertentu dalam negara yang bertujuan memaksa saya melepaskan jawatan Perdana Menteri dan Presiden Umno.”

    Mein Gott!

    That is not what the investigation should be about, it should be whether the money was transferred to these accounts (whoever it is), why it was transferred in and what happened to the money after.

    Here the PM is creating his own question, his own accusation and saying that is what should be investigated.

    WSJ never ever said the money was for his personal interest of gain, it just said this is where the money went to.

    The terms of reference of the investigation must be released immediately

    Like

    • Number 4 really takes the cake. His pals are investigating whether he took the money for personal use? So what he means is that he did take the money but NOT for personal use? What an idiot.

      Someone on his team is either deliberately trying to F him up in the rim or they are just too stupid. I think a RC needs to be set up to investigate on why is najib’s defence in such a shamble state. To think the guy had a few B’s running in his acc. at one time. Must be a cheapskate

      Like

    • Perhaps they had to say something or appear to say something for the domestic media consumption, likewise to bolster their own sagging spirit. But even with this evident incoherence, they managed to win court cases, or did they? Tell me something about the health or otherwise of the Judiciary.

      Like

  16. Pingback: Mahathir’s Smoking Yankee Gun | 書 政 shuzheng

  17. bro,

    kalau you berminat nak beli minyak lenga terbaru cap Hafarizam, murah je RM10 sebotol dan boleh dapatkan dari master stockist haji rocky. lol
    🙂
    django

    Like

  18. Thanks for sharing jmd… we are a laughing stock to the world and it’s such a shame,hard time for us and we need to stand up to this nonsense in next coming election and vote them out. It’s time we united as Malaysian not malay… Chinese or Indian or others. This is our tanah tumpahnya darahku.

    Like

  19. http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015/07/08/Anifah-action-can-be-taken/

    PUTRAJAYA: Action may be taken against anyone who tries to tarnish the image of the country by criticising the Government and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, says Datuk Seri Anifah Aman.

    “It is the norm to discuss all issues. We are satisfied with the Prime Minister’s explanation,” he said.

    http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015/07/08/Najib-statement-on-money-probe-and/

    Najib: I didn’t take any money for personal gain

    “I want to reiterate that I have never taken 1MDB funds for personal gain,” said Najib in a statement on Wednesday.

    http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015/07/08/Khairy-says-cabinet-united/

    Cabinet is united behind Najib, says Khairy

    http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015/07/08/No-reason-for-Najib-to-take-leave/

    No reason for Najib to go on leave, say Umno supreme council members

    bro,

    looks like the lanuns are gearing up for the grand finale, ketua lanun akan dipertahankan by all means. kena liwat lagi lah rakyat Malaysia.
    🙂
    django

    Like

  20. Temasek and PNB are similar. So? Which sovereign fund is not officially or unofficially deeply entwined within the policies of their respective countries? Yes, there are many poor Singaporeans. However, they are poor not because they were never given a fair shake. Do you see Singaporean Malays rushing to Malaynize themselves like your mamaks and Javanese. No, because ‘Kiasuland’ offers them something which the Melayus can never offer Malaysians. Kiasuland does not institutionalize racial and religious bigotry. The nons do not expect Malaysia to be perfect but stop whacking us on the head with your ‘Ketuanan’ Islam and Melayu shit. As of this moment an overwhelming number of nons still believe in Malaysia just like HRH the Sultan of Johor. But HRH also talk about Bangsa Johor. Why? I sense Bangsa Johor is also about getting around the ‘Ketuanan’ Melayu and Islam shit so as to keep his state united. Wonder why? Isn’t there already UMNO -PAS to take care of the Malays and Muslims?

    Like

  21. Let me preface by saying I think the whole thing is a joke, and that the lawyers of our esteemed Prime Minister has painted a veneer of incompetency for the world to see. That being said, in response to your BLUE highlights, and playing Devil’s Advocate…

    1) “What exactly are vague allegations? Is it an allegation or not? Would it be the same with a little bit pregnant but not pregnant? An allegation is an allegation. You cannot sue someone with a vague allegation. How could a vague allegation be scurrilous?

    – The full context of Messrs Hafarizam Wan & Aisha Murabak’s sentence was “….contains a plethora of convoluted, scurrilous and vague allegations against our client.” Meaning the adjective vague was cobbled together with convoluted and scurrilous. It is a bad attempt admittedly (no one should use more than two bombastic adjectives to express their vocabulary skill) at emphasizing the nature of said allegations, but allegations they were. That the allegation was vague, does not detract it from being an allegation.

    2) Now they want WSJ to confirm if the USD700 million was misappropriated by Najib Razak. WSJ can just easily tell them to just ask their Client since the money was banked in into his account. The WSJ article did state that money was channeled into his bank accounts but they do not know what happened to it, or how it was used. It’s laughable to ask for confirmation because it shows that the lawyers did not read those articles thoroughly.

    – Actually, a bit of comprehension gone awry. The esteemed and erudite Messrs’ (see what I did there) sentence in question was “In the circumstances, we are instructed by our Client to seek confirmation as to whether it is your position as taken in the Articles that our Client misappropriated nearly USD 700 million from 1Malaysia Development Berhad?”

    This comprehensively of course means that the lawyers are requested on behalf of their client to verify what the publication means as the nature and tonality of their article has allowed for readers to potentially make the jump to conclusion of their client misappropriating funds. In the entire article, the journalist stops short of saying such an incident occured. Merely connecting certain dots leaves it open to reader interpretation. However, it is also a poor attempt to tie in the publication in technical defaults. If the publication responded in the affirmative, then they would be asked to reveal their sources for veracity. If the publication responded in the negative, then the spin doctors would take that as absolvement for our beloved Prime Minister.

    This is a simple case of trial by media. It is not uncommon for those who already have formed an opinion to take an impartial stance even when reading. It’s there in plain English, and yet people have formed their own understanding and comprehension of something completely different.

    There’s more mistakes but it is rather late.

    Good job with the blog nonetheless. Cheers.

    Like

  22. Pingback: Najib punya lawyer’s letter to WSJ… in simple English! | CILISOS - Current Issues Tambah Pedas!

  23. Pingback: Lowyat + Countdown for legal suit against WSJ | iampolitikus

  24. Dear JMD, I revisited this article and can’t help but laugh at the stupidity of PM and his lawyers. In hindsight, and in lieu of all the subsequent actions by the himself and his lawyers, I can now summarise that this PM is officially the most clownish leader who got his hand caught in the cookie jar but too chicken shit to be honourable about it. Crime doesn’t pay but this Crime Minister do not heed the laws his own government ought to protect and adhere. Keep up the good work dear sir.

    Like

Astound us with your intelligence!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s